Discussion:
Shoreham Air Crash
(too old to reply)
Yellow
2017-03-03 19:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
As fortune would have it, I was queueing to pass the traffic lights on
the A27, north of Shoreham Airport, at around 5pm this evening when the
results of the investigation into the air crash came on the radio. I
pass that way frequently and always remember but tonight it made my
blood run cold, to know I was sitting exactly where 11 men died that
day.

I didn't see the crash but I did see the Vulcan. It was going to be its
second to last flight ever so I was waiting to see it, but it flew over
and tipped its wing, and then left the way it came

Oh god! What has happened?

Then I saw the smoke.

As much as we might have enjoyed the airshow, it has always made some
people in the immediate area nervous and I even know one family who make
a point of being away for the airshow weekend as they are so worried
that a plane will crash into the surrounding houses. And I always took
that as a gross over reaction, even though a few years previously a
plane crashed on the Downs just north of the site, narrowly missing
Lancing College and all its inhabitant but killing the pilot.

After that crash, they moved the show from September to August, during
the school holidays, so the children would not be present when the show
occurred.

I guess that should have sounded even more alarm bells.

As should the fact that the Red Arrows have always refused to perform
due to the risk because of the site's location.

But people enjoyed the show, part of the heritage of the airport, so
year on year it has continued.

Anyway, so I was sitting at the traffic lights, listening to the radio
and what do they say? The pilot fucked up but no one knew what he was
going to do so no one assessed the risk of looping the loop over a busy
road. In fact no one assessed any of the risks - period.

The pilot just did as he fancied, and no one said - what if?

We have laws. We have commissions. We have regulations. We have
committees. But what is the point if they are not going to actually do
what they are supposed to do?

And who monitors that they are doing it?

There is talk of prosecuting the pilot, but what about those who did not
do their job to ensure should tragedy occur - and that would include
just a simple mechanical failure - that the plane would not plough into
a road chock-a-block with traffic or into the many houses that are
probably less than half a mile away from the runway and under the
display zone.

We had no show this year, but many are hoping that it does come back, it
is history, our heritage - but how can we ever trust these people again?

I certainly won't.
Omega
2017-03-03 20:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
As fortune would have it, I was queueing to pass the traffic lights on
the A27, north of Shoreham Airport, at around 5pm this evening when the
results of the investigation into the air crash came on the radio. I
pass that way frequently and always remember but tonight it made my
blood run cold, to know I was sitting exactly where 11 men died that
day.
I didn't see the crash but I did see the Vulcan. It was going to be its
second to last flight ever so I was waiting to see it, but it flew over
and tipped its wing, and then left the way it came
Oh god! What has happened?
Then I saw the smoke.
As much as we might have enjoyed the airshow, it has always made some
people in the immediate area nervous and I even know one family who make
a point of being away for the airshow weekend as they are so worried
that a plane will crash into the surrounding houses. And I always took
that as a gross over reaction, even though a few years previously a
plane crashed on the Downs just north of the site, narrowly missing
Lancing College and all its inhabitant but killing the pilot.
After that crash, they moved the show from September to August, during
the school holidays, so the children would not be present when the show
occurred.
I guess that should have sounded even more alarm bells.
As should the fact that the Red Arrows have always refused to perform
due to the risk because of the site's location.
But people enjoyed the show, part of the heritage of the airport, so
year on year it has continued.
Anyway, so I was sitting at the traffic lights, listening to the radio
and what do they say? The pilot fucked up but no one knew what he was
going to do so no one assessed the risk of looping the loop over a busy
road. In fact no one assessed any of the risks - period.
The pilot just did as he fancied, and no one said - what if?
We have laws. We have commissions. We have regulations. We have
committees. But what is the point if they are not going to actually do
what they are supposed to do?
And who monitors that they are doing it?
There is talk of prosecuting the pilot, but what about those who did not
do their job to ensure should tragedy occur - and that would include
just a simple mechanical failure - that the plane would not plough into
a road chock-a-block with traffic or into the many houses that are
probably less than half a mile away from the runway and under the
display zone.
We had no show this year, but many are hoping that it does come back, it
is history, our heritage - but how can we ever trust these people again?
I certainly won't.
Excuse my intrusion cariad, a Hawker Hunter, not a Vulcan.

A most dreadful tale.

omega
Yellow
2017-03-03 21:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Omega
Post by Yellow
As fortune would have it, I was queueing to pass the traffic lights on
the A27, north of Shoreham Airport, at around 5pm this evening when the
results of the investigation into the air crash came on the radio. I
pass that way frequently and always remember but tonight it made my
blood run cold, to know I was sitting exactly where 11 men died that
day.
I didn't see the crash but I did see the Vulcan. It was going to be its
second to last flight ever so I was waiting to see it, but it flew over
and tipped its wing, and then left the way it came
Oh god! What has happened?
Then I saw the smoke.
As much as we might have enjoyed the airshow, it has always made some
people in the immediate area nervous and I even know one family who make
a point of being away for the airshow weekend as they are so worried
that a plane will crash into the surrounding houses. And I always took
that as a gross over reaction, even though a few years previously a
plane crashed on the Downs just north of the site, narrowly missing
Lancing College and all its inhabitant but killing the pilot.
After that crash, they moved the show from September to August, during
the school holidays, so the children would not be present when the show
occurred.
I guess that should have sounded even more alarm bells.
As should the fact that the Red Arrows have always refused to perform
due to the risk because of the site's location.
But people enjoyed the show, part of the heritage of the airport, so
year on year it has continued.
Anyway, so I was sitting at the traffic lights, listening to the radio
and what do they say? The pilot fucked up but no one knew what he was
going to do so no one assessed the risk of looping the loop over a busy
road. In fact no one assessed any of the risks - period.
The pilot just did as he fancied, and no one said - what if?
We have laws. We have commissions. We have regulations. We have
committees. But what is the point if they are not going to actually do
what they are supposed to do?
And who monitors that they are doing it?
There is talk of prosecuting the pilot, but what about those who did not
do their job to ensure should tragedy occur - and that would include
just a simple mechanical failure - that the plane would not plough into
a road chock-a-block with traffic or into the many houses that are
probably less than half a mile away from the runway and under the
display zone.
We had no show this year, but many are hoping that it does come back, it
is history, our heritage - but how can we ever trust these people again?
I certainly won't.
Excuse my intrusion cariad, a Hawker Hunter, not a Vulcan.
The Vulcan was going to be the next plane to display so it arrived a
minute or two after the crash happened.

It flew over the crash site, tipped it wing as a mark of respect, and
then flew off.
Post by Omega
A most dreadful tale.
It is.
Ophelia
2017-03-03 21:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

As fortune would have it, I was queueing to pass the traffic lights on
the A27, north of Shoreham Airport, at around 5pm this evening when the
results of the investigation into the air crash came on the radio. I
pass that way frequently and always remember but tonight it made my
blood run cold, to know I was sitting exactly where 11 men died that
day.

I didn't see the crash but I did see the Vulcan. It was going to be its
second to last flight ever so I was waiting to see it, but it flew over
and tipped its wing, and then left the way it came

Oh god! What has happened?

Then I saw the smoke.

As much as we might have enjoyed the airshow, it has always made some
people in the immediate area nervous and I even know one family who make
a point of being away for the airshow weekend as they are so worried
that a plane will crash into the surrounding houses. And I always took
that as a gross over reaction, even though a few years previously a
plane crashed on the Downs just north of the site, narrowly missing
Lancing College and all its inhabitant but killing the pilot.

After that crash, they moved the show from September to August, during
the school holidays, so the children would not be present when the show
occurred.

I guess that should have sounded even more alarm bells.

As should the fact that the Red Arrows have always refused to perform
due to the risk because of the site's location.

But people enjoyed the show, part of the heritage of the airport, so
year on year it has continued.

Anyway, so I was sitting at the traffic lights, listening to the radio
and what do they say? The pilot fucked up but no one knew what he was
going to do so no one assessed the risk of looping the loop over a busy
road. In fact no one assessed any of the risks - period.

The pilot just did as he fancied, and no one said - what if?

We have laws. We have commissions. We have regulations. We have
committees. But what is the point if they are not going to actually do
what they are supposed to do?

And who monitors that they are doing it?

There is talk of prosecuting the pilot, but what about those who did not
do their job to ensure should tragedy occur - and that would include
just a simple mechanical failure - that the plane would not plough into
a road chock-a-block with traffic or into the many houses that are
probably less than half a mile away from the runway and under the
display zone.

We had no show this year, but many are hoping that it does come back, it
is history, our heritage - but how can we ever trust these people again?

I certainly won't.

=============

You can't unless they are fully trained and the training upgraded when
needed 'on that particular aircraft!!!

It seems he wasn't used to piloting it and expected it to perform as well as
a lighter one that he was used to

That aircraft was not to blame.

I would never, ever attend a civilian air show.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Yellow
2017-03-03 21:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Ophelia
You can't unless they are fully trained and the training upgraded when
needed 'on that particular aircraft!!!
It seems he wasn't used to piloting it and expected it to perform as well as
a lighter one that he was used to
That aircraft was not to blame.
Yes, that seems to be very clear - this was pilot error.

But he should never have been allowed in to the position where it was
possible for him to make the error at the expense of 11 lives.
Post by Ophelia
I would never, ever attend a civilian air show.
Not so easy for people who live near by the air field, but yes, if you
did not feel that way before this crash investigation then it is clear
that in this case the whole thing was run by a bunch of incompetents.

And I doubt that is unusual.
Jeff
2017-03-04 09:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Not so easy for people who live near by the air field, but yes, if you
did not feel that way before this crash investigation then it is clear
that in this case the whole thing was run by a bunch of incompetents.
And I doubt that is unusual.
No one would have batted an eyelid if 11 people had died in a pile up at
those traffic lights, just because it was an aircraft we get all this
hoo-haa drummed up by the media.

After the previous major fatality at an air show they just cleared up
the debris and got on with the flying.
(The 1952 Farnborough Air show)

Jeff
Yellow
2017-03-04 10:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
Not so easy for people who live near by the air field, but yes, if you
did not feel that way before this crash investigation then it is clear
that in this case the whole thing was run by a bunch of incompetents.
And I doubt that is unusual.
No one would have batted an eyelid if 11 people had died in a pile up at
those traffic lights,
I have no idea where you live but around here a car crash that killed 11
people would have caused the batting of lids.
Post by Jeff
just because it was an aircraft we get all this
hoo-haa drummed up by the media.
It has actually been drummed up by an 18 month investigation into what
happened.
Post by Jeff
After the previous major fatality at an air show they just cleared up
the debris and got on with the flying.
(The 1952 Farnborough Air show)
Just put the bodies in a sack, after finding all the pieces of course,
cart away the plane and the cars, resurface the road, and off we go just
like nothing happened?

Thankfully - not.
Jeff
2017-03-04 11:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Jeff
No one would have batted an eyelid if 11 people had died in a pile up at
those traffic lights,
I have no idea where you live but around here a car crash that killed 11
people would have caused the batting of lids.
But not 2 years on!!
Post by Yellow
Post by Jeff
just because it was an aircraft we get all this
hoo-haa drummed up by the media.
It has actually been drummed up by an 18 month investigation into what
happened.
Post by Jeff
After the previous major fatality at an air show they just cleared up
the debris and got on with the flying.
(The 1952 Farnborough Air show)
Just put the bodies in a sack, after finding all the pieces of course,
cart away the plane and the cars, resurface the road, and off we go just
like nothing happened?
Thankfully - not.
That is exactly what they do with road crashes!!!

Jeff
Yellow
2017-03-04 20:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
Post by Jeff
No one would have batted an eyelid if 11 people had died in a pile up at
those traffic lights,
I have no idea where you live but around here a car crash that killed 11
people would have caused the batting of lids.
But not 2 years on!!
Post by Yellow
Post by Jeff
just because it was an aircraft we get all this
hoo-haa drummed up by the media.
It has actually been drummed up by an 18 month investigation into what
happened.
Post by Jeff
After the previous major fatality at an air show they just cleared up
the debris and got on with the flying.
(The 1952 Farnborough Air show)
Just put the bodies in a sack, after finding all the pieces of course,
cart away the plane and the cars, resurface the road, and off we go just
like nothing happened?
Thankfully - not.
That is exactly what they do with road crashes!!!
Road travel has a purpose, airshows over busy roads and people's homes
do not.
Post by Jeff
Jeff
Omega
2017-03-04 10:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
snip
Post by Jeff
After the previous major fatality at an air show they just cleared up
the debris and got on with the flying.
(The 1952 Farnborough Air show)
Jeff
I have to say, that has also been my experience, an airshow in the UK is
little more than a Gladiators arena.

We watched two vintage jets, can't remember what they were now, go down
killing the crews at Mildenhall for the commentary to carry on, as if,
nothing was happening. The planes crashed into open fields outside the
base and the show didn't even pause from the programme.

Some years later, watched a pilot destroy himself coming out of a loop,
in a Spitfire, at Woodford. Emergency crews, cleared the runway then
watched a very dramatic display from a Russian Mig.

Later, my son and I came very close to death at Broughton when a Venom
hit an oil drum at the side of the runway, lost trim and hit the deck
nearly ploughing into us. Pilot survived without injury. No other harmed.

The Red Arrows are an extremely well trained and disciplined squadron
but my word have I watched their antics when on home ground. I stood on
the sand dunes and watched their display at Valley. There 'contra pair'
manoeuvre always looks so dramatic but they leave a fair distance
between them and rely on illusion they are about to crash when viewed
side on. Having passed each the other they then usually dive towards
the ground for even more dramatic effect but then darting up, what seems
the last moment to continue the routine. With a mere handful watching
from the dunes at Valley one of the pair decided he would fly extra low
out over the sea. With wings at 90 degrees to the ground he used us as
a marker and flew over our heads. We hit the deck! Later talking to a
fellow about 50 yards from us, I commented how close contra had been and
he replied, nonsense, his wing tip was at least 12 feet from the ground.
As I'm six feet tall a margin of six feet before parting my hair at
400 knots doesn't leave much for error.

I hadn't realised the Hunter pilot had survived Shoreham and looking at
his picture a few moments ago, what a complete wreck he looks compared
to his flamboyant mood, prior to his crash. His recklessness caused
eleven men to die but his anguish pitiable, perhaps a man, he too,
wished he was dead?

omega
Brian Reay
2017-03-04 10:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
Not so easy for people who live near by the air field, but yes, if you
did not feel that way before this crash investigation then it is clear
that in this case the whole thing was run by a bunch of incompetents.
And I doubt that is unusual.
No one would have batted an eyelid if 11 people had died in a pile up at
those traffic lights, just because it was an aircraft we get all this
hoo-haa drummed up by the media.
After the previous major fatality at an air show they just cleared up
the debris and got on with the flying.
(The 1952 Farnborough Air show)
Jeff
I don't think that is true. We had a major pile up in fog on a bridge
near here, I'm not sure if anyone was killed, but there was significant
'hoo-haa'.

Certainly a case like this requires investigation, a proper
investigation not a witch hunt and not by the media or armchair experts.
The investigation should result in recommendations to prevent
recurrences and, if appropriate, assign responsibility for errors.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
Ophelia
2017-03-04 13:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...
Post by Ophelia
You can't unless they are fully trained and the training upgraded when
needed 'on that particular aircraft!!!
It seems he wasn't used to piloting it and expected it to perform as well as
a lighter one that he was used to
That aircraft was not to blame.
Yes, that seems to be very clear - this was pilot error.


* Yes it was and he must pay the price for that. I suspect
arrogance played a large part. He assumed he could fly that without the
specific training.


But he should never have been allowed in to the position where it was
possible for him to make the error at the expense of 11 lives.


* Agreed. The arrows refuse to fly there any more.

*
http://news.sky.com/story/red-arrows-pull-stunts-at-show-after-shoreham-10315556
Post by Ophelia
I would never, ever attend a civilian air show.
Not so easy for people who live near by the air field, but yes, if you
did not feel that way before this crash investigation then it is clear
that in this case the whole thing was run by a bunch of incompetents.

And I doubt that is unusual.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Nightjar
2017-03-04 10:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
As fortune would have it, I was queueing to pass the traffic lights on
the A27, north of Shoreham Airport, at around 5pm this evening when the
results of the investigation into the air crash came on the radio. I
pass that way frequently and always remember but tonight it made my
blood run cold, to know I was sitting exactly where 11 men died that
day...
Passing the screens around the site in the weeks after the accident
didn't? However, you are at far more risk from the traffic around you
there than from any aircraft.

...
Post by Yellow
As should the fact that the Red Arrows have always refused to perform
due to the risk because of the site's location.
Their reason for refusing was that there was nowhere for one of their
aircraft to make a safe landing if anything went wrong. It was the media
who, after the crash, interpreted that as meaning that the site was too
dangerous for aerobatic displays.
Post by Yellow
But people enjoyed the show, part of the heritage of the airport, so
year on year it has continued.
Anyway, so I was sitting at the traffic lights, listening to the radio
and what do they say? The pilot fucked up but no one knew what he was
going to do so no one assessed the risk of looping the loop over a busy
road. In fact no one assessed any of the risks - period.
Untrue. The AAIB report did, however, find that the risk assessments for
the display did not properly address the risks to people outside the
display area.
Post by Yellow
The pilot just did as he fancied, and no one said - what if?
The AAIB found a written plan of the display in the pilot's pocket after
the accident. Had he completed the manoeuvre as planned, there would
have been no accident. He was also north of the intended line of flight
when he came down. Nothing in the planned display would have given any
cause for concern.
Post by Yellow
We have laws. We have commissions. We have regulations. We have
committees. But what is the point if they are not going to actually do
what they are supposed to do?
And who monitors that they are doing it?
The CAA, who have already introduced a number of changes to the way that
air displays are held.
Post by Yellow
There is talk of prosecuting the pilot, but what about those who did not
do their job to ensure should tragedy occur - and that would include
just a simple mechanical failure - that the plane would not plough into
a road chock-a-block with traffic or into the many houses that are
probably less than half a mile away from the runway and under the
display zone.
Impossible to prevent. You can only manage the risk. It is only a few
years ago that a perfectly normal flight to Shoreham ended up with an
aircraft on the roof of a nearby house.
Post by Yellow
We had no show this year, but many are hoping that it does come back, it
is history, our heritage - but how can we ever trust these people again?
As with every air accident, people learn from it and every effort is
made to ensure it won't happen again.
Post by Yellow
I certainly won't.
=============
You can't unless they are fully trained and the training upgraded when
needed 'on that particular aircraft!!!
Which was the case here. He was a very experienced ex-RAF instructor and
established display pilot. It was his fifth display of the season on
that aircraft and he had completed more than the requisite number of
prior displays and practice displays.
Post by Yellow
It seems he wasn't used to piloting it and expected it to perform as
well as a lighter one that he was used to
It is not true that he was not used to piloting the aircraft. He had 43
hours on type. Exactly what he expected is unknown. He has no
recollection of anything between the evening of the previous Wednesday
and waking up in hospital.

Although the heights and speeds are consistent with those that would
have been used with the Jet Provost, there is insufficient evidence to
say whether that was simply coincidence. It is known that the engine was
not producing full power in the climb. It is also known that no fault
was found with the engine. However, it is also known that engines of the
same type have suffered unexplained loss of thrust in the past.
Post by Yellow
That aircraft was not to blame.
I would never, ever attend a civilian air show.
The prescribed viewing areas should be perfectly safe. Standing on the
display line never has been a good idea.
--
--

Colin Bignell
Yellow
2017-03-04 20:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
As fortune would have it, I was queueing to pass the traffic lights on
the A27, north of Shoreham Airport, at around 5pm this evening when the
results of the investigation into the air crash came on the radio. I
pass that way frequently and always remember but tonight it made my
blood run cold, to know I was sitting exactly where 11 men died that
day...
Passing the screens around the site in the weeks after the accident
didn't? However, you are at far more risk from the traffic around you
there than from any aircraft.
As I said, I think of it every time I pass by the airport but hearing
the findings of the report while passing the airport, sitting where
those men died and listening to the list of failures, really hit me.
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
As should the fact that the Red Arrows have always refused to perform
due to the risk because of the site's location.
Their reason for refusing was that there was nowhere for one of their
aircraft to make a safe landing if anything went wrong. It was the media
who, after the crash, interpreted that as meaning that the site was too
dangerous for aerobatic displays.
I heard different. I heard they were only prepared to perform over the
sea so if something goes wrong they can ditch. But the airport has
houses between the field and the sea, so they would not perform - even
over the Downs.

All the other aircraft though performed over the air field, the Downs
and the houses. And the road.
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
But people enjoyed the show, part of the heritage of the airport, so
year on year it has continued.
Anyway, so I was sitting at the traffic lights, listening to the radio
and what do they say? The pilot fucked up but no one knew what he was
going to do so no one assessed the risk of looping the loop over a busy
road. In fact no one assessed any of the risks - period.
Untrue.
True.

"The risk assessment was not suitable and sufficient to manage risks to
the public but the flying display director thought it was. It did not
consider which aircraft would be displaying, where they would operate or
how to prevent a hazard."
Post by Nightjar
The AAIB report did, however, find that the risk assessments for
the display did not properly address the risks to people outside the
display area.
Yes, that too. Shocking stuff eh?

"The regulator even continued to grant the annual aircraft bonanza
permission to go ahead when it contradicted one of its main safety
requirements - because it takes place in a busy area, namely the A27
which carries more than 58,000 cars a day."
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
The pilot just did as he fancied, and no one said - what if?
The AAIB found a written plan of the display in the pilot's pocket after
the accident. Had he completed the manoeuvre as planned, there would
have been no accident. He was also north of the intended line of flight
when he came down. Nothing in the planned display would have given any
cause for concern.
Except they did not know what he had planned but even if they had -

"Risk assessments did not need to be read or approved by the CAA in
order for Shoreham Airshow to be given a licence to take place, the Air
Accident Investigations Branch found."
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
We have laws. We have commissions. We have regulations. We have
committees. But what is the point if they are not going to actually do
what they are supposed to do?
And who monitors that they are doing it?
The CAA, who have already introduced a number of changes to the way that
air displays are held.
But is changing the rules enough? If they are not going to do the
assessments anyway. How can we ever be sure? How can we trust?
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
There is talk of prosecuting the pilot, but what about those who did not
do their job to ensure should tragedy occur - and that would include
just a simple mechanical failure - that the plane would not plough into
a road chock-a-block with traffic or into the many houses that are
probably less than half a mile away from the runway and under the
display zone.
Impossible to prevent. You can only manage the risk.
Indeed - Access the hazard, mitigate the risk and do not do acrobatics
over a main road or over people's houses.

The report concluded: "No organisation or individual considered all the
hazards associated with the aircraft's display, what could go wrong, who
might be affected and what could be done to mitigate the risks to a
level that was both tolerable and as low as reasonably practicable."
Post by Nightjar
It is only a few
years ago that a perfectly normal flight to Shoreham ended up with an
aircraft on the roof of a nearby house.
No plane has ever ended up in the roof of a house around here in my
memory.

When did this occur?
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
We had no show this year, but many are hoping that it does come back, it
is history, our heritage - but how can we ever trust these people again?
As with every air accident, people learn from it and every effort is
made to ensure it won't happen again.
Stop the show and I guarantee will not happen again.
Nightjar
2017-03-05 09:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
The AAIB found a written plan of the display in the pilot's pocket after
the accident. Had he completed the manoeuvre as planned, there would
have been no accident. He was also north of the intended line of flight
when he came down. Nothing in the planned display would have given any
cause for concern.
Except they did not know what he had planned but even if they had -
"Risk assessments did not need to be read or approved by the CAA in
order for Shoreham Airshow to be given a licence to take place, the Air
Accident Investigations Branch found."
But even if they had known and the CAA had reviewed the risk assessment,
the planned display would have appeared to be completely safe.

....
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
It is only a few
years ago that a perfectly normal flight to Shoreham ended up with an
aircraft on the roof of a nearby house.
No plane has ever ended up in the roof of a house around here in my
memory.
When did this occur?
Longer ago than I thought - April 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1256487.stm
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
We had no show this year, but many are hoping that it does come back, it
is history, our heritage - but how can we ever trust these people again?
As with every air accident, people learn from it and every effort is
made to ensure it won't happen again.
Stop the show and I guarantee will not happen again.
Closing the A27 during the show would have the same effect.
--
--

Colin Bignell
Yellow
2017-03-05 12:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
...
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
The AAIB found a written plan of the display in the pilot's pocket after
the accident. Had he completed the manoeuvre as planned, there would
have been no accident. He was also north of the intended line of flight
when he came down. Nothing in the planned display would have given any
cause for concern.
Except they did not know what he had planned but even if they had -
"Risk assessments did not need to be read or approved by the CAA in
order for Shoreham Airshow to be given a licence to take place, the Air
Accident Investigations Branch found."
But even if they had known and the CAA had reviewed the risk assessment,
the planned display would have appeared to be completely safe.
The investigation found that any risk assessments that were done were
totally inadequate, so that is unlikely. At least I hope is was
unlikely!
Post by Nightjar
....
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
It is only a few
years ago that a perfectly normal flight to Shoreham ended up with an
aircraft on the roof of a nearby house.
No plane has ever ended up in the roof of a house around here in my
memory.
When did this occur?
Longer ago than I thought - April 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1256487.stm
Thanks for the link.
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
We had no show this year, but many are hoping that it does come back, it
is history, our heritage - but how can we ever trust these people again?
As with every air accident, people learn from it and every effort is
made to ensure it won't happen again.
Stop the show and I guarantee will not happen again.
Closing the A27 during the show would have the same effect.
Seriously? The A27 carries 58,000 a day.

And all the residents of Shoreham and Lancing? Where are they supposed
to go?

As an aside, planning permission is just being applied for, to build an
Ikea, 600 homes and a landscaped park right next door to the airport so
I wonder how that will fit into to any future assessments of risk, given
the scheme gets permission to go ahead.
Nightjar
2017-03-05 17:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
...
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
The AAIB found a written plan of the display in the pilot's pocket after
the accident. Had he completed the manoeuvre as planned, there would
have been no accident. He was also north of the intended line of flight
when he came down. Nothing in the planned display would have given any
cause for concern.
Except they did not know what he had planned but even if they had -
"Risk assessments did not need to be read or approved by the CAA in
order for Shoreham Airshow to be given a licence to take place, the Air
Accident Investigations Branch found."
But even if they had known and the CAA had reviewed the risk assessment,
the planned display would have appeared to be completely safe.
The investigation found that any risk assessments that were done were
totally inadequate, so that is unlikely. At least I hope is was
unlikely!
The planned display was to start at 500 feet, not at less than 200 feet.
The apex was planned to be at 4,000 feet, not the 2,700 feet attained.
4,000 feet would have given a safety margin of 500 feet above the
display minimum of 500 feet at the bottom of the loop. As I said,
nothing in the planned display would have given anybody any cause for
concern.

...
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
We had no show this year, but many are hoping that it does come back, it
is history, our heritage - but how can we ever trust these people again?
As with every air accident, people learn from it and every effort is
made to ensure it won't happen again.
Stop the show and I guarantee will not happen again.
Closing the A27 during the show would have the same effect.
Seriously? The A27 carries 58,000 a day.
It is as practical a suggestion as stopping the air show. The air show
was there long before the flyover existed and it would only be for the
weekend.
Post by Yellow
And all the residents of Shoreham and Lancing? Where are they supposed
to go?
IME, those who can are sitting in their gardens, looking at the display.
Post by Yellow
As an aside, planning permission is just being applied for, to build an
Ikea, 600 homes and a landscaped park right next door to the airport so
I wonder how that will fit into to any future assessments of risk, given
the scheme gets permission to go ahead.
AIUI, it is to be built on land to the side of the airport, which will
be well clear of the display line.

The bottom line is that, like being caught up in a terrorist attack, an
event like this is devastating to those involved, but, for the rest of
us, is so very unlikely as not to be something to be worried about. As I
said earlier, the traffic on the A27 is a far greater danger to you than
any aircraft crash at Shoreham.
--
--

Colin Bignell
Yellow
2017-03-05 18:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Closing the A27 during the show would have the same effect.
Seriously? The A27 carries 58,000 a day.
It is as practical a suggestion as stopping the air show.
No it isn't. It is a stupid suggestion.
Post by Nightjar
The air show
was there long before the flyover existed and it would only be for the
weekend.
The flyover opened in 1970, 47 years ago, while the airshow has been
going for around 25 years.
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
And all the residents of Shoreham and Lancing? Where are they supposed
to go?
IME, those who can are sitting in their gardens, looking at the display.
Before the accident and the damning report, perhaps. But I do not
believe that will be the case now.
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
As an aside, planning permission is just being applied for, to build an
Ikea, 600 homes and a landscaped park right next door to the airport so
I wonder how that will fit into to any future assessments of risk, given
the scheme gets permission to go ahead.
AIUI, it is to be built on land to the side of the airport, which will
be well clear of the display line.
And accidents *never* happen......
Post by Nightjar
The bottom line is that, like being caught up in a terrorist attack, an
event like this is devastating to those involved, but, for the rest of
us, is so very unlikely as not to be something to be worried about. As I
said earlier, the traffic on the A27 is a far greater danger to you than
any aircraft crash at Shoreham.
The risk of unrelated activities is irrelevant when assessing the risk
of this, or any other, hazard.
Nightjar
2017-03-06 10:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Closing the A27 during the show would have the same effect.
Seriously? The A27 carries 58,000 a day.
It is as practical a suggestion as stopping the air show.
No it isn't. It is a stupid suggestion.
The Shoreham by-pass kills more people than the Shoreham airshow.
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
The air show
was there long before the flyover existed and it would only be for the
weekend.
The flyover opened in 1970, 47 years ago,
As long ago as that? No wonder I only recall the bridge toll in old money.
Post by Yellow
while the airshow has been
going for around 25 years.
As the RAFA airshow, but Shoreham airport started doing airshows in the
late 1940s, shortly after it returned to civilian use.
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
And all the residents of Shoreham and Lancing? Where are they supposed
to go?
IME, those who can are sitting in their gardens, looking at the display.
Before the accident and the damning report, perhaps. But I do not
believe that will be the case now.
I think that most will be more sensible than that.
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
As an aside, planning permission is just being applied for, to build an
Ikea, 600 homes and a landscaped park right next door to the airport so
I wonder how that will fit into to any future assessments of risk, given
the scheme gets permission to go ahead.
AIUI, it is to be built on land to the side of the airport, which will
be well clear of the display line.
And accidents *never* happen......
At airshows, the danger zone is on the display line and the new building
would be well clear of that.
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
The bottom line is that, like being caught up in a terrorist attack, an
event like this is devastating to those involved, but, for the rest of
us, is so very unlikely as not to be something to be worried about. As I
said earlier, the traffic on the A27 is a far greater danger to you than
any aircraft crash at Shoreham.
The risk of unrelated activities is irrelevant when assessing the risk
of this, or any other, hazard.
I was making the point that the risk of any of these things is extremely
small and it is important to view them in context of the actual, rather
than the perceived, risk. Since the war, only 54 spectators have been
killed in airshow accidents in the UK, 39 of those in or before the 1952
Farnborough crash. You are nearly 40 times more likely to be stuck by
lightning and around three time more likely to be killed by lightning in
the UK than to be a bystander killed in an airshow accident.
--
--

Colin Bignell
Yellow
2017-03-06 11:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Closing the A27 during the show would have the same effect.
Seriously? The A27 carries 58,000 a day.
It is as practical a suggestion as stopping the air show.
No it isn't. It is a stupid suggestion.
The Shoreham by-pass kills more people than the Shoreham airshow.
The bypass does not kill anyone. There fatalities on the road,
especially around the tunnel, but that has got nothing to do with a
plane falling out of the sky because it was displaying over the road,
and decapitating and burning alive 11 people.

If we stop the air show, people will still die on our roads.
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
The air show
was there long before the flyover existed and it would only be for the
weekend.
The flyover opened in 1970, 47 years ago,
As long ago as that? No wonder I only recall the bridge toll in old money.
Post by Yellow
while the airshow has been
going for around 25 years.
As the RAFA airshow, but Shoreham airport started doing airshows in the
late 1940s, shortly after it returned to civilian use.
The records I found say it has been running for 25 years.
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
And all the residents of Shoreham and Lancing? Where are they supposed
to go?
IME, those who can are sitting in their gardens, looking at the display.
Before the accident and the damning report, perhaps. But I do not
believe that will be the case now.
I think that most will be more sensible than that.
We will see but there is not going to be a show this year, so that it
good news at least.
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
As an aside, planning permission is just being applied for, to build an
Ikea, 600 homes and a landscaped park right next door to the airport so
I wonder how that will fit into to any future assessments of risk, given
the scheme gets permission to go ahead.
AIUI, it is to be built on land to the side of the airport, which will
be well clear of the display line.
And accidents *never* happen......
At airshows, the danger zone is on the display line and the new building
would be well clear of that.
And a major road that carries 58,000 cars a day,
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
The bottom line is that, like being caught up in a terrorist attack, an
event like this is devastating to those involved, but, for the rest of
us, is so very unlikely as not to be something to be worried about. As I
said earlier, the traffic on the A27 is a far greater danger to you than
any aircraft crash at Shoreham.
The risk of unrelated activities is irrelevant when assessing the risk
of this, or any other, hazard.
I was making the point that the risk of any of these things is extremely
small and it is important to view them in context of the actual, rather
than the perceived, risk.
11 dead.......
Post by Nightjar
Since the war, only 54 spectators have been
killed in airshow accidents in the UK, 39 of those in or before the 1952
Farnborough crash. You are nearly 40 times more likely to be stuck by
lightning and around three time more likely to be killed by lightning in
the UK than to be a bystander killed in an airshow accident.
The number people who have been struck by lightening is neither here nor
there and has nothing to do with the hazards created by an air show, the
risk to people and property, and the actions required to mitigate that
risk.
Jeff
2017-03-06 12:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
The number people who have been struck by lightening is neither here nor
there and has nothing to do with the hazards created by an air show, the
risk to people and property, and the actions required to mitigate that
risk.
It does serve to put the level of risk in perspective!!

Jeff
Yellow
2017-03-06 12:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
The number people who have been struck by lightening is neither here nor
there and has nothing to do with the hazards created by an air show, the
risk to people and property, and the actions required to mitigate that
risk.
It does serve to put the level of risk in perspective!!
Except that putting risk in perspective by comparing road accidents or
lightening strikes, is not how you assess risk.
Jeff
2017-03-07 09:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
The number people who have been struck by lightening is neither here nor
there and has nothing to do with the hazards created by an air show, the
risk to people and property, and the actions required to mitigate that
risk.
It does serve to put the level of risk in perspective!!
Except that putting risk in perspective by comparing road accidents or
lightening strikes, is not how you assess risk.
But either way the assessed risk, even before any changes, is lower than
being struck by lightening, and far far lower than being killed in a
road accident.

Jeff
Yellow
2017-03-07 10:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
The number people who have been struck by lightening is neither here nor
there and has nothing to do with the hazards created by an air show, the
risk to people and property, and the actions required to mitigate that
risk.
It does serve to put the level of risk in perspective!!
Except that putting risk in perspective by comparing road accidents or
lightening strikes, is not how you assess risk.
But either way the assessed risk, even before any changes, is lower than
being struck by lightening, and far far lower than being killed in a
road accident.
But so what? How does knowing that an average of 3 people a year get
killed by lightening strikes help you assess how risky it is to hold an
airshow?
Jeff
2017-03-08 07:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
But so what? How does knowing that an average of 3 people a year get
killed by lightening strikes help you assess how risky it is to hold an
airshow?
By indicating the *actual* level of risk, ie very low.

Jeff
Yellow
2017-03-08 11:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
But so what? How does knowing that an average of 3 people a year get
killed by lightening strikes help you assess how risky it is to hold an
airshow?
By indicating the *actual* level of risk, ie very low.
You simply do not understand.

The risk of being hit by lightening in general, across the population.
is very low. But if you are the highest point in an open field during a
thunderstorm, the risk to you as an individual is very high.

It is the same with airshows.
Jeff
2017-03-08 12:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Jeff
By indicating the *actual* level of risk, ie very low.
You simply do not understand.
The risk of being hit by lightening in general, across the population.
is very low. But if you are the highest point in an open field during a
thunderstorm, the risk to you as an individual is very high.
It is the same with airshows.
Not unless you are standing on the runway!!!

Even if you include pilots, as well as the general public, far more
people have been struck by lightening, or suffered from shock effects,
in their own homes than were injured or killed at air shows.

Just in the period 1988-2012 there were 443 known incidents affecting
720 individuals, almost half that number (47%) were indoors.

Only 4% of incidents were on a hill top.

That averages to about 29 people a year.

4% of events were on an airfield!!!

Jeff
Yellow
2017-03-08 13:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
Post by Jeff
By indicating the *actual* level of risk, ie very low.
You simply do not understand.
The risk of being hit by lightening in general, across the population.
is very low. But if you are the highest point in an open field during a
thunderstorm, the risk to you as an individual is very high.
It is the same with airshows.
Not unless you are standing on the runway!!!
Or in your car, on the A27, in 2015.
Post by Jeff
Even if you include pilots, as well as the general public, far more
people have been struck by lightening, or suffered from shock effects,
in their own homes than were injured or killed at air shows.
Just in the period 1988-2012 there were 443 known incidents affecting
720 individuals, almost half that number (47%) were indoors.
Only 4% of incidents were on a hill top.
But you are still failing to grasp what this all tells you - so let me
try again.

Of all the houses in the land, just a small number were hit by
lightening, so you can state that the risk to each individual is low.
But if you go out in a thunderstorm and make yourself the highest point,
the risk of you being hit by lightening is high.

It is possible to mitigate the risk to all houses by fitting lightening
conductors but as that risk is low, few bother over and above those with
tall building.

We do however have mitigation through instruction, a perfectly valid way
of mitigating risk in some circumstances, and people are advised to
disconnect their TV and their phone during a storm.

And the person on the hill? Obviously we cannot ban a walker who can
simply do as they wish but let's say they are there for work, maybe
working on a powerline or cutting a tree. The risk assessment would
return that if there was a storm, the risk of death or injury by
lightening strike to the individual is sufficiently high that the
employer would instruct their employee to stop work and to move to a
safer area.
Post by Jeff
That averages to about 29 people a year.
4% of events were on an airfield!!!
And yet, you still you fail to grasp the difference between risk to an
individual due to a specific circumstance and risk to a population as a
whole.
Nightjar
2017-03-10 09:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08-Mar-17 1:37 PM, Yellow wrote:
..
Post by Yellow
And yet, you still you fail to grasp the difference between risk to an
individual due to a specific circumstance and risk to a population as a
whole.
Whichever way you choose to view it, the risk of death to bystanders at
an airshow is very, very low.
--
--

Colin Bignell
Nightjar
2017-03-07 09:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Closing the A27 during the show would have the same effect.
Seriously? The A27 carries 58,000 a day.
It is as practical a suggestion as stopping the air show.
No it isn't. It is a stupid suggestion.
The Shoreham by-pass kills more people than the Shoreham airshow.
The bypass does not kill anyone. There fatalities on the road,
especially around the tunnel, but that has got nothing to do with a
plane falling out of the sky because it was displaying over the road,
and decapitating and burning alive 11 people.
By that argument, the airshow doesn't kill anybody either. As with the
road, it was a crash that killed them. Incidently, they died at the main
black spot for RTCs involving pedestrians along that stretch of road.
Post by Yellow
If we stop the air show, people will still die on our roads.
It is extremely unlikely that anybody else will die as a result of an
airshow related incident if we don't stop it. Immediately after the
accident, the CAA imposed restrictions on high energy manoeuvres by
vintage aircraft at airshows and is implementing all 21 of the AAIB
recommendations. The crash has changed the nature of airshows forever.

...
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
while the airshow has been
going for around 25 years.
As the RAFA airshow, but Shoreham airport started doing airshows in the
late 1940s, shortly after it returned to civilian use.
The records I found say it has been running for 25 years.
If you Google Shoreham Airshow, you will get results for the RAFA
Airshow which, as you say, has been running for a quarter of a century.
However, I was on the committee of the Popular Flying Association, which
was based at Shoreham, and we had records of airshows being held there
as far back as the late 1940s. There may even have been some before the war.


...
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
The bottom line is that, like being caught up in a terrorist attack, an
event like this is devastating to those involved, but, for the rest of
us, is so very unlikely as not to be something to be worried about. As I
said earlier, the traffic on the A27 is a far greater danger to you than
any aircraft crash at Shoreham.
The risk of unrelated activities is irrelevant when assessing the risk
of this, or any other, hazard.
I was making the point that the risk of any of these things is extremely
small and it is important to view them in context of the actual, rather
than the perceived, risk.
11 dead.......
In the worst airshow disaster in 63 years. Individually tragic, but
statistically insignificant. As I said, you need to separate the actual
risk from the perceived risk.
Post by Yellow
Post by Nightjar
Since the war, only 54 spectators have been
killed in airshow accidents in the UK, 39 of those in or before the 1952
Farnborough crash. You are nearly 40 times more likely to be stuck by
lightning and around three time more likely to be killed by lightning in
the UK than to be a bystander killed in an airshow accident.
The number people who have been struck by lightening is neither here nor
there and has nothing to do with the hazards created by an air show, the
risk to people and property, and the actions required to mitigate that
risk.
Comparing the probability of different risks is a way to assess whether
a fear of a particular event is rational or not. Most people do not have
a real fear of being struck by lightning, hence a fear of an event that
is 40 times less probable is not really rational.
--
--

Colin Bignell
Yellow
2017-03-07 10:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nightjar
Post by Yellow
The number people who have been struck by lightening is neither here nor
there and has nothing to do with the hazards created by an air show, the
risk to people and property, and the actions required to mitigate that
risk.
Comparing the probability of different risks is a way to assess whether
a fear of a particular event is rational or not. Most people do not have
a real fear of being struck by lightning, hence a fear of an event that
is 40 times less probable is not really rational.
Risk is risk - it has nothing to do with how risky another other event
or activity is nor is it about people's response to it.

It is simply about the likelihood of there being an incident, the
consequences of that incident should it does occur, and what can be done
to mitigate that risk to zero.
Jeff
2017-03-08 07:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
It is simply about the likelihood of there being an incident, the
consequences of that incident should it does occur, and what can be done
to mitigate that risk to zero.
Not to zero; to an acceptable level based on the actual level of risk,
cost, practicality, inconvenience etc etc.

To mitigate all risks to zero is impractical.

Jeff
Yellow
2017-03-08 11:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
It is simply about the likelihood of there being an incident, the
consequences of that incident should it does occur, and what can be done
to mitigate that risk to zero.
Not to zero; to an acceptable level based on the actual level of risk,
cost, practicality, inconvenience etc etc.
To mitigate all risks to zero is impractical.
But you have to try - that is the point, and the law.
Jeff
2017-03-08 12:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Jeff
Not to zero; to an acceptable level based on the actual level of risk,
cost, practicality, inconvenience etc etc.
To mitigate all risks to zero is impractical.
But you have to try - that is the point, and the law.
Not the law at all, which uses the test of "reasonably practicable" .

Jeff
Yellow
2017-03-08 13:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff
Post by Yellow
Post by Jeff
Not to zero; to an acceptable level based on the actual level of risk,
cost, practicality, inconvenience etc etc.
To mitigate all risks to zero is impractical.
But you have to try - that is the point, and the law.
Not the law at all, which uses the test of "reasonably practicable" .
What is it that you do not understand about the word "try"?
Loading...